Talk:List of common misconceptions

Please read before proposing new entries A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list does not exist, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following: The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. If you propose an entry that does not fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please include your rationale for inclusion.

Misconceptions about Wikipedia

I'm sorry for breaking convention in regard to suggesting new things to add, but I don't have enough time to do intensive research (I'm just about to pop out). So I'll just say that there are many well-documented misconceptions regarding Wikipedia that should be added to this page, probably the most notable one being that "because Wikipedia is an unreliable source, nothing you read in it is true". This is something that, as well as reading many articles about, I have witnessed many people say in real life... and it is actually rather infuriating because I know how heavily monitored all the articles are, and how tight the system is. I think these Wikipedia misconceptions should be discussed in this section of the talk page, so we can work out which are notable enough to be in the article.--Coin945 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Common misconceptions about wikipedia are not really common misconceptions. siafu (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Common misconceptions about Wikipedia are common misconceptions if they are sourced as such. There might be something we could use in articles that compare Wikipedia to other encyclopediae(correct plural form?), but we'd need it to be explicitly stated (NO:OR).Dr bab (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, here's one: "Now, this is Wikipedia, so anyone can go in there and change anything and a list of common misconceptions seems like a pretty great place to troll. That being said, every item on the list cites at least one source, often 3 or 4, which I assume means that the statement is accurate. I don’t look at the sources or anything, I just assume blue, superscript numbers are markers of truth. Somebody add that to the list of misconceptions."--Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This source is not indicating that this is a common misconception, but is apparently falling prey to the supposed misconception. As such, use of this source for this purpose would be a violation of WP:OR. siafu (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• This podcast starts off by saying: "In this episode I reveal the truth behind some common misconceptions about Wikipedia and discuss why and how you should embrace it in the classroom". An audio version is here --Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

While this is a podcast, not generally a reliable source, it does appear to be a podcast created by university librarians, and so I'll leave that issue aside. Regardless, this merely identifies potential misconceptions without demonstrating their commonality. siafu (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is also the Wikipedia:PressKit source here.--Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be a source of information for other wikipedia articles; this one won't do us much good. siafu (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] --> all these sites have useful information about common misconceptions about Wikipedia too.--Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Occupedia indicates "misconceptions about wikipedia", no indication of actual commonality.
  • The Signal also doesn't establish commonality, but does attempt to do so with a number of interview quotes showing that misconceptions repeatedly came up. Would be WP:SYNTH to extrapolate to the rest of the population.
  • Hispance Business Same problem as above, uses a quote from Mr. Wales regarding "common misconceptions about wikipedia".
  • Wikipedia: The Company and Its Founders Not available for viewing. Can't evaluate easily-- anyone have access to a hard copy of this book?
  • Moving at the Speed of Wikipedia This blog at least makes the claim that "many people" believe these misconceptions, but doesn't really demonstrate how this was determined beyond the author's opinion; as such, this falls for the usual pitfalls of blogs.
  • Wikipedia essay Existence != Notability This is again wikipedia on wikipedia, not an acceptable source. siafu (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that none of these really demonstrate that these misconceptions are in fact common ones, merely that they exist. In order to demonstrate that these belong in this article, it needs to be clear from the sources that they are commonly held overall. siafu (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• What makes you think there isn't enough evidence that these misconceptions are common, and what more would we have to provide to prove to you that they were?--Coin945 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

While these show that amongst people interacting with wikipedia, these misconceptions are common. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not these are misconceptions that are common to the population in general. Previously on this talk page, Hairhorn put this rather succintly:

There are common misconceptions about multivariable calculus, no one would suggest they are common misconceptions

The criteria listed at the top of this page put it more clearly, though. Also, as regards the first criterion, while some of these misconceptions may have wikipedia essays about them, this is not the same as having articles about them due to notability. I don't see anything in what you have presented so far that indicates that these are misconceptions actually held by a large segment of the population. I will respond to the individual source above, under each bullet. siafu (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have been hearing from various teachers since grade school (both in Canada and US) that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" (and that one should use "traditional information sources" for research) despite numerous studies showing that Wikipedia is approximately as reliable and factually accurate as traditional encyclopedias. I would say that makes the unreliability of Wikipedia a pretty common misconception. Varodrig (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, your personal experience does not substitute for a reliable source. We need actual sources to this effect. siafu (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read though every one of those sources Colin specified, but I'd like to point out some things in response to your argument that the sources don't say these misconceptions are common. First, with that podcast, the phrasing for the first sentence is "common misconceptions". Next, I found another link to an article on "dangerouslyirrelevant.org" (http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2008/11/teaching-administrators-about-wikipedia.html). This is a ".org", so typically it should be a reliable source. Here is the main excerpt that gets the point across:

If all of this is true, then why are so many educators, librarians, and media specialists upset about Wikipedia?

The person doesn't go own to illustrate why the misconceptions are common. It is only substantiated by his or her opinion. However, as I said, this is a ".org" site, and we generally consider them reliable enough to rely on their opinions. Elsewhere on wikipedia, people take these opinions as reliable without giving it a second thought. I don't think the fact that they are unsubstantiated opinions is a strong enough argument against their inclusion in this article. Charles35 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also:

https://p2pu.org/en/groups/open-access-wikipedia-challenge/content/wikipedia-philosophy/history/10400/

One fairly common misconception about Wikipedia is that it's hostile to experts. - again, a ".org".

I don't think you properly understand wikipedia's sourcing policies. Having a .org address does nothing to either render a source reliable or unreliable. siafu (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

However, as I said, this is a ".org" site, and we generally consider them reliable enough to rely on their opinions.

This is a ".org", so typically it should be a reliable source.

It might not technically make a difference on wikipedia, but overall, as a society, .org's are more reliable and we consider them to be more reliable.

Again, I don't think that the fact that they are not demonstrated to be common is a strong enough argument for exclusion from the article. 9 times out of 10, we will take the source's word for it. The fact that it is a .org is an added bonus. Charles35 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, this doesn't seem to be such an important criterion for the other misconceptions listed here. For example, the footnote that talks about the life expectancy misconception (footnote #5 - http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/01/falsehood-if-this-was-the-ston/) doesn't give a study or anything like that about how common of a misconception it is. He says:

People often...

It is generally thought that...

The statement “I’m 40 years old, along with other statements of fact about “The Paleolithic” demonstrates widespread misconceptions about the past.

And I suspect that the vast majority of sources here do not go into any depth to mention how common these misconceptions are. Charles35 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Another example - if you look at footnote #36 for the Revolutionary War misconception, it says nothing at all about how common it is - http://www.breedshill.org/revolutionary_war_myths.htm.

There are so many misconceptions, inaccurate quotes, and downright lies told about the American Revolution...There’s a fine line between sharing what you know and telling someone they are wrong. Funny thing, people don’t like to be told they are wrong. During the last election and inauguration I kept finding my jaw on the floor as newscasters stated “facts” that I knew were wrong to millions of unsuspecting viewers. Not one of my helpful e-mails to various news departments got a response or a correction. - this is just this guy's opinion. He doesn't demonstrate anything. Charles35 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim:

It might not technically make a difference on wikipedia, but overall, as a society, .org's are more reliable and we consider them to be more reliable.

is both irrelevant, and also completely ridiculous. By this logic, timecube.org should be taken as "more reliable" than cnn.com. I believe you will find that the willingness of other editors to patiently explain policy is directly proportional to your own willingness to read the policies for yourself. In this case, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SYNTH. Not that the science blog you linked to cites sources, and is on a site partnered with National Geographic, and that the claims made regarding the revolutionary war come from the Breeds Hill Institute, a historical society. The blogs you are citing have neither clear sourcing (or any, for that matter), nor a reliable endorsement (like being an official blog of a research institute, or on the front page of a respected newspaper like NYT). But that aside, apparently only three of the sources (all unsourced blogs) you put forward regarding common misconceptions about wikipedia even attempt to make assertions about commonality at all, and these aren't really reliable sources, despite having a .org address. It's important, lastly, to distinguish between assertions of fact (which are being discussed here) and matters of opinion. When a blogger (or anyone) states something like "X is a common misconeption", or "Y is believed by most people", this is an assertion of fact. It could be wrong, and it represents the opinion of the speaker about whether or not the statement is true, but the statement itself is not an opinion as ultimately the statement is either true or false, with a certain allowance for ambiguity in the meaning of the words "most" or "common". The way wikipedia works is that the source itself is either held as reliable or not, not the facts within that source, so these statements coming from a reliable source are to be accepted for wikipedia or not. siafu (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

^ I said "overall, as a society". I am not saying that every single .org is more reliable than every single non-.org. I never said it's so cut and dry. It's just a tendency. However, this is not that big of a deal and largely irrelevant. Charles35 (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I havent had the chance to revisit this conversation for a while, but if i had, I would have basically argued the exact same thing Charles35 has above: Siafu, why are you giving overly-strict restrictions on this topic, when these restrictions have been given to hardly any, perhaps none at all, of the sources already in the article? Theoretically, if what we have provided if still not enoguh for us to discuss the common misconceptions of Wikipedia, what more must we add? Doy ou need to see the same misconception discussed into over 100 sources before you consider its "commonality" proven? I just don't understand how you can be so (excuse my french) anal in this matter, when it simply seems unreasonable... :/--Coin945 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Siafu, please don't get caught up on the .org side issue. Let's stick to the matter at hand.--Coin945 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Displaying ignorance of wikipedia policy, and then accusing me of being anal for pointing it out, is entirely inappropriate. Your "french" is also not excused-- see WP:NPA. siafu (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack or not (i don't think that was a PA at all, but...) please can you answer my question? I can't comment on your analyses of the links i provided until i can get some idea of what you 'mean' by common misconceptions. How common must a misconception be until you are satisfied of it's commonality.--Coin945 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get too worked up over this. The bottom line is that siafu is technically justified in excluding these misconceptions from the article. However, if we stick to siafu's principles, then we must remove most, if not all, of the ones that are already here. As colin said, let's not focus on the .org thing or the difference between assertions of fact and opinions; that doesn't really matter. But I contend that not only in this article, but in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia, we consider the "assertions of fact" made by reliable sources to be appropriate for inclusion (even if not substantiated by a study). I believe these sources are reliable. Honestly, your points about this source compared to the historical source weren't very clear, so I'm not sure what you meant.

And this is nothing personal against you. I hope it doesn't come across that way. Charles35 (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What would satisfy my objections would be reliable and verifiable sources that make the actual claims in question, namely that the particular misconceptions about wikipedia that are being discussed by the source are, in fact, widespread misconceptions. The book cited earlier, Wikipedia: The Company and Its Founders, may well already satisfy this for all I know (really, if anyone has access to this book, this could be resolved rather quickly). Otherwise, something similar to the blog posts (which actually do make the commonality claim) but from a more reliable source would probably do it. I should note that your statement: "...in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia, we consider the "assertions of fact" made by reliable sources to be appropriate for inclusion..." is exactly the point I was trying to make in the discussion of fact vs. opinion, and is not just true for the "vast majority" of articles, but is in fact representative of the policy for all articles on wikipedia. If it seems that I 'hung on' to the .org issue, it is simply because, while you seem to be willing to spend time reading the sources (commendable), you are obviously not reading the policy pages (just as important in this discussion), which, IMO, would clear up the whole sourcing confusion for you. Also, I'm going out of the country for awhile, so I won't be around to be "so anal" for awhile. siafu (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the p2p source is unreliable... I can see why you'd say the dangerouslyirrelevant source is unreliable because it's just a blog post, but I don't get what the problem with p2p is. Forgive me, I don't know much about p2p, and I couldn't find out from just looking at the website - is it a blog as well?

Also, I have seen sources like these allowed on wikipedia plenty of times. If you want, I can look through the sources already used here and let you know which ones are just as poor as these. I speculate that many of them are. I don't have access to that book, sorry. And please know that we aren't "ganging up" on you or anything like that. I am not going to add anything to the article before you agree to it and we come to a consensus on the sources. Charles35 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Change layout of this talk page?

At the moment, previously discussed and resolved points are erased. This is unfortunate, because the topics might be debated multiple times, and people's useful contributions are lost. I feel it would be worthwhile changing the structure of this talk page into 3 main sections like below: 80.7.96.98 (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Old entries are not erased, they are archived. There are now 17 pages of archive material. Agree that old topics often come up again and again - perhaps a "sticky' list with pointers to previous discussions would be useful, but I don't think changing this page's structure, thereby making it out of step with all the other talk pages on Wikipedia, is a good idea. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then a 'sticky list' as you suggest, with summary a link to the debate, is the right thing to do. I too don't think it would be fair to expect any potential contributor to wade through megabytes of unnavigable material. And is there evidence of it ever happening? Some structure to facilitate navigation I feel would be beneficial in allowing potential contributors to see if they would be actually contributing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.96.98 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Debates about current entries

Here existing entries are being actively discussed. Once some consensus is reached, or the debate has ended, please summarise the arguments and conclusion, and make an entry in either the #Removed entries and rejected suggestions or the #Resolved debates on current entries section, depending on whether the entry stays or goes.

History

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation did, in fact, free the slaves in Southern territories occupied by the Union army. Also, as news of the proclamation spread quickly among the slaves, it inspired a number of slaves to escape their Southern masters to the North. It is true that it did not free the slaves in Northern states loyal to the Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.239.159 (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Science

Psychology

"Photographic or eidetic memory is the ability to remember images with high precision—so high as to mimic a camera. However, it is highly unlikely that photographic memory exists, as to date there is no hard scientific evidence that anyone has ever had it... There are rare cases of individuals with exceptional memory, but none of them has a memory that mimics a camera."

I believe this to be false - what about the case of Stephen Wiltshire, an autistic architect who was able to reproduce an entire cityscape in minute detail after one tour over the city in a helicopter? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wiltshire and http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/biography.aspx )

Please provide a source that corroborates this view; I don't believe that Mr. Wiltshire's personal website is acceptable. siafu (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for new entries

Biology

There is no such dinosaur as a brontosaurus

Apatosaurus is the correct name. There are articles such as BBC Focus magazine: Brontosaurus to back this up. I for one wasn't aware of this until a short while ago. 80.7.96.98 (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just that the scientific community has decided to discard the name "brontosaurus", which is not the same thing at all. This is not a misconception, just a matter of science and popular parlance being out of step on synonyms. See our article. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think 80.7.96.98 intended this as an example of the proposed new layout, not as a serious suggestion to be discussed here. But I may be mistaken. If so, I agree with Dweller. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed this was somewhat to illustrate a proposal for a new layout. Having googled around a little, this article by Mike Tailor, along with the comments above, should pack the brontosaurus off to the land of #Removed entries and rejected suggestions. Mr. Swordfish , it's early days, but do you think there's a chance this new layout could be working out? 80.7.96.98 (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

...do you think there's a chance this new layout could be working out?

Emphatically, no. It's just confusing people, and the sooner it's archived out, the better. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if this isn't going to be adopted then fair enough.. It might not get archived automatically, though, since not all the sections have valid timestamps. If you want to purge it, I'll not grumble. 80.7.96.98 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Language

I think there ought to be a section devoted to human language, with the current content of "English Words and Phrases" as a subsection. Some rough proposals:

Myth: Writing is fundamental to human language, and provides the best means for understanding the structure and use of a language as a whole.

Though in many societies literacy is a matter of prime social and economic importance, writing is a technological invention much more recent than spoken language, is often used for a narrower set of purposes (e.g. for trade or scholarship but not conversation), and is not as widespread or diverse. In fact, most spoken languages are not normally written down. Therefore, linguists more commonly consider the spoken language to be the primary object of study, though textual artifacts can be an important source of evidence (for instance, in philology and corpus linguistics).

Myth: Sign language is essentially a form of pantomiming, less complex and conventionalized than spoken language.

Gestures, hand shapes, and facial expressions, which take a secondary role in spoken language, become the primary mode of communication in a signed language. The grammatical complexity, communicative power, and regularity of a sign language is no different than that of a spoken language. Different sign languages vary and develop naturally over time just like spoken languages. American Sign Language, for example, is not a word-for-word translation of English.

Myth: Hereditary factors predispose individuals to learn to speak some languages more easily than others.

While much about language acquisition is disputed, children are capable of natively acquiring any language given sufficient exposure at the right age. Inability to do so is attributed to a mental or communicative deficit or disability.

Myth: After a certain age, it is impossible to become fluent in a new language.

Many factors are believed to influence one's ability to learn a nonnative or "second" language, a process known as second language acquisition. It is relatively rare for a nonnative speaker to acquire fully native-like abilities, but many adults succeed at becoming fluent in a second language.

Also, the paragraph about nonstandard/slang words in English could be generalized to a statement about prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. --neatnate (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed entries and rejected suggestions

Here is a list of things that have been removed from the article, or never made it on there, along with a brief rationale. You should disrupt the timestamp in the entries here, otherwise the archive bot will remove them after a couple of weeks.

Human Biology

Exposure to cold weather leads to the common cold

This is not a misconception, it is perhaps a controversy. See Common cold#Weather.

History

The Dark Ages where not as (intellectually) bleak as common wisdom suggests

The arguments put in support of this were fallacies, unsourced or non sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qed (talk • contribs) 02:14, 21st Dec '12

Resolved debates on current entries

Here is a list of the more debated topics, organised in a manner similar to the article. Each entry should have a brief rationale about why the topic is broadly justified. You should disrupt the timestamp in the entries here, otherwise the archive bot will remove them after a couple of weeks.

Merge instead to Urban Legends

As noted at top, Internet Urban Legends was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 12 December 2012 with a consensus to merge the content here. Look at the debate: not really consensus, just a late proposal, an agree, and close.
But I think Internet Urban Legends should be merged into Urban Legends, as was suggested earlier in that discussion. Comment/!vote ? --Lexein (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom. --Lexein (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Moot There is really no useable information in the article to be merged (beyond the Blair Witch Project mention), so it frankly doesn't matter what we "officially" do with it. siafu (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Question Were the editors of List of common misconceptions notified of the merge discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Only by the placement of the topmost merge tag you see here. --Lexein (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• It appears as if the merge discussion[7] was closed at the same time we were notified of it.[8] Shouldn't we have been notified the discussion was talking place before the close so we could participate in that discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, now that I take a closer look at that article, I don't think there's any content that's usable for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom. My take:

1) The editors of this page should have been notified before and merge decision was made and the discussion closed.

2) Reading the discussion, it is far from clear that merging it into this article received anything close to what might be called consensus.

3) There's no usable content in the current version of the article, so the issue is probably moot.

4) Looking at previous versions of that article, there may be some things that could have been preserved; if so, I would vote to merge Internet Urban Legends into Urban Legends, not this article.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

US centric

Most of the examples in the history sections relate to western and particularly American history. What would people think about either changing the titles of these sections to reflect this or pruning out some of the less notable American history examples? Garemoko (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)